To think older people need to sit up and take notice of this

[OwlOfBrown]

So the Tory manifesto includes a plan to make (elderly) people pay for their own social care costs until they are down to the last £100K of their wealth. Andrew Dilnot, who chaired a commission on social care costs during the coalition government which suggested a cap of £35,000 on care costs borne by individuals, has condemned this plan.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-19286845/andrew-dilnot-on-social-care-cap-and-inheritances

I know a lot of MN'ers will say that this is fair, and I do have some sympathy with that opinion. Why should someone be able to sit on hundreds of thousands of pounds of wealth when the state pays for their care? But is it really fair? What about when others have the same amount of wealth but enjoy the good fortune of not needing social care so get to keep their wealth? After all, we don't make people with long-term illnesses pay for their medical treatment (yet...) so what is different about social care?

Debate away - I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on this.

I am also wondering who is going to pay for the upkeep, maintenance of your home, if and when it no longer solely belongs to the owner/occupier.

I saw an interesting article in the papers yesterday about a system of carer's credits, it meant that someone could care for a elderly neighbour and store up hours or credits for the future when they might need care. I can't remember what it was called though.

granny, mum and dad in their 60s and both still working, and 20 somethings on zero hours contracts/part time minimum wage, who can't afford their own place and who are stuck in their parents' house caring for granny.

Hell that might be a best case scenario.

What if there are no children? Three or four ageing people in a home, all perhaps with complicated needs but no care. Catfood cakes for lunch. Bedsores. Perhaps one has violent dementia. Incontinence.

A hell house.

ideas in countries where people mostly rent

Netherlands
Highest spender in Europe (as percentage of GDP) on long term care and introduced compulsory social health iInsurance for long term care in 1968.

Students get free housing in home for the elderly but they have to help out inhabitat.com/dutch-housing-model-lets-students-stay-at-a-senior-living-home-for-free/
Dementia villages hogeweyk.dementiavillage.com/en/

I don't get how someone suggested people in residential care will be 'better off' with the new manifesto proposal. Who has 100,000 in the UK and chosen not to buy a house?

I don't get how someone suggested people in residential care will be 'better off' with the new manifesto proposal. Who has 100,000 in the UK and chosen not to buy a house?

Because at the moment they have to sell the house if they go into care and are allowed to keep no where near 100k. It is something like 25k I believe.

Citroenpresse I think you're missing the point - lots of people in residential care will have sold their homes! It's not a case of them choosing not to have bought a house; it's a case of the house having been sold once they moved into residential care.

In education you get a basic primary and secondary state provision. You want a university education you pay for it yourself over your lifetime. if you can afford it. In health care you get a basic accident and emergency state cover, you want expensive or experimental drugs, pay for them yourself. You want more cycles of fertility treatment, pay for them yourself. You have bad eye sight, pay for it yourself. And so on.

Why does the new policy discriminate against people with dementia, they will be gone when this happens. So lets be honest and call it what it is. A tax on rich children's inheritance.

Do we have a social insurance for everyone against bad eyesight? Dental care? Lack of physical prowess? Addiction? Should we pool our money and give everyone a house?

So why is this genetic predisposition, probabaly exacerbated by bad lifestyle choices, now suddenly the one thing (at great expense) we should tax everyone else to prevent erosion of inheritance from?

Should innocent children of criminals have their inheritance protected? Should innocent children of profligate people have their inheritance protected? What about innocent children of Catholic children who's inheritance is diluted between many siblings. No we usually just say tough. Why should this one group of children be protected at the cost of all the others?

Why is it when wealthy people reach old age they expect to bequeath all their assets to their children but all their debts to other peoples children?

*Why should this one group of children be protected at the cost of all the others?

Why is it when wealthy people reach old age they expect to bequeath all their assets to their children but all their debts to other peoples children?*

YY.

Uncomfortablebadger Many people sell their homes to pay for care but how many people who have sold their homes already are in residential care and are close to the threshold for no longer paying? (i.e. they only have 100,000k in their accounts)? If someone sold a house for the average in the UK say, 233,000, they would need to be in a home for four years (at their own expense) before they could get free care. That's a lot longer than the average stay. It isn't that you get the first 100k of care free but the last! Three times as people receive social care in their own homes, but will now have to pay for it.

or rather 100k wouldn't be the 'last' but the you wouldn't have to make any payments after that.

Many people sell their homes to pay for care but how many people who have sold their homes already are in residential care and are close to the threshold for no longer paying?

My GM had to sell her home virtually as soon as she went into a care home.

They still have to pay though.

You could say that the existing policy is unfair to those that are so ill that they have to go into residential care.

I wonder if divorce will be a way to double the £100k limit for married couples. A couple could divorce, but remain together, thereby splitting their estate into two equal halves, each entitled to never spend below the £100k mark.

Drastic, but with good wills, it would work if serious health issues clearly requiring long term, expensive social care surfaced late in life

citroenpresse It completely depends on the care needs of the individual - say that somebody needs specialist care costing £1500pw having sold their property for £233k, then they'd reach the £100k threshold much quicker (and sooner than they'd reach the average stay in a care home).

I've seen numerous cases where the existing £23,250 threshold HAS been reached and I know that those individuals would have been very grateful for a threshold of nearer £100k.

JamieXeed74 But it is not only wealthy people who have a house, is it?

But it is not only wealthy people who have a house, is it?
If you cant afford a house now, or indeed will ever be able to afford one, then having more than £100,000 equity in property can legitimately be called 'wealthy'.

I guess a lot of MN have more equity than that and cant understand how the other half live.

EWE
You don't have to do anything as drastic as divorce
Just separate the house tenancy from joint to tennents in common so that each persons own 50 percent each with a life time trust to the surving spouse in the case of death
That way each person can leave 50 percent to there children / heirs with no problem and only their half of the house can be used for care
It's very cheap to do around £350 pounds
My parents have just done this recently .

!peaceout Sun 21-May-17 13:29:51
Will there be enough live in carers to go round?
It's not a job many people will want to do"

The 18 to 21 year olds who have lost their Housing Benefit? So that they have somewhere to live.

Maybe this is what May and the rest of the Tories are thinking.

I see your reasoning Helena, but not sure the tories could pull that off, you need the right temperament to be a carer...dont you?

forcing people into roles that they are unsuited to is just an inefficient use of human resources

peaceout the J. C. does it all the time.........including with care work.

Still don't get that reasoning ie that the threshold will make a positive difference. Surely the point is that equity in a house - whatever kind of care you want - will be considered in every case as funds to pay for your care. Sure, the government will still allow you to keep 100k, whereas now, maybe some unlucky people spend all of it. That's very uncertain and unpredictable. 75% of people aged 65 or over own their own home. How many of those are worth under 100k and owned by those who have no other income? Those people are now paying for care in their homes now.

'the J. C. does it all the time.........including with care work'
I appreciate that, but with much greater numbers of elderly needing care...lots of very pissed off people both carers and cared for?

I would get someone from abroad to do the caring such as a Thai or Malaysian nurse. I know that immigration has to be curbed blah blah blah but there could end up being a crisis and the only solution would probably be to pay carers a lot of money to persuade British people to do the job.
That is not feasible as it would cost too much so I can see the Gov making special allowances for immigrant carers to be allowed to work here.

the only solution would probably be to pay carers a lot of money to persuade British people to do the job
no one wants to pay the rate that would make it a job worth doing...so import someone from a poor country to do the dirty work

Don't forget the homes take the person's pensions if they are not self funding.